10 Lessons for Every Professional Liability Practitioner William Flenley QC
It s the merits Third Point Prepare case in a way that suggests the merits favour your client Ask: how is the judge likely to view the Ask: how is the judge likely to view the case, in terms of gut instinct as to fairness?
Nationwide BS v Davisons Identity fraud on mortgage lenders Fake firm of solicitors, Rothschilds, pretending to act for the seller of a property The fake firm behaved broadly as a normal conveyancing firm would Lender s solicitors released the lender s money to the fake solicitors; the money was lost due to the fraud
No allegation that lender s solicitors had been negligent, or that any negligence had caused the loss. Lender s solicitors were in breach of trust Issue: should they be excused for having acted reasonably? (s.61 Trustee Act) NB They had failed to comply with Law Society guidance as to the undertakings they should have sought from seller s solicitors
Breach of trust is a matter of strict liability: so solicitors could be in breach of trust but blameless The solicitors had acted in breach of Law Society guidelines, but not majorly so Even if they had not acted in breach of the guidelines, the lenders loss would still have been suffered Held: solicitors entitled to relief under s.61 so the lender lost See now: Santander v RA Legal
Needler v Taber Needler financial advisors in breach of duty As a result Mr Taber transfers his pension to Norwich Union He should have remained in the Ilford Pension Scheme On demutualisation of Norwich Union he received a payment of 8k. Did he have to give credit for it in his claim?
Fourth Point The other side may try to fundamentally alter their case at or before trial The judge may permit this if s/he thinks that there is something in the new allegations
Fifth Point New points introduced at the last moment may often be weakened by the lateness of their introduction Example of an arbitration as to whether an insured condoned the dishonesty of an employee Or a claim that any reasonably competent professional would have done x or y
Sixth Point Preferable to avoid last minute amendments The overriding objective has just been altered to include reference to the importance of enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders
Swain-Mason v Mills & Reeve (NB the claim against Mills & Reeve was rejected) Mr Swain had (i) a business to sell and (ii) a weak heart, which was about to be operated on Original case: Ds should have structured deal differently due to risk of death in the operation New case: should have structured it differently regardless of the operation
Swain (2) Court of Appeal: heavy burden on a party seeking to amend at the last minute, unless the new case arises out of new disclosure
Seventh Point Mistakes made in drafting witness statements can be fatal It is easier to sort out inconsistencies with the documents when there s time to think about the issues, rather than in crossexamination Having to serve supplemental witness statements may make the errors in the earlier version obvious
Eighth Point Mehjoo v Harben Barker (June 2013) Relevance of experience of expert witnesses in relation to the specific type of transaction in question; Mehjoo: expert in the taxation of parties not domiciled in the UK
Webb v E Surv - Was it negligent for lenders to lend at high LTVs, with self-certification of income? - Possibility for challenge, if lending expert evidence and disclosure of lender s business model
Mehjoo again Experts worked for large firms of accountants Relevance of disclosure of what the accountants own firms were doing at the relevant time
Ninth Point: retainer letters Mehjoo (3): alleged failure of accountants to advise claimant to use his non-dom status to avoid paying CGT when he sold his business Retainer letter limited Held retainer letter varied by accountants conduct: they had a duty to advise on saving CGT even though claimant had not asked them to do so Cf other professions
generalist s duty to suggest specialist advice Generalist accountant had duty to suggest seeking advice of a non-dom specialist
Tenth Point: approaches to settlement
You are the claimant You are advised you have a 95% chance of success; claim for 1m You are offered a payment of 90% Do you take it?
You are the defendant You have a 95% chance of losing and having to pay 1m You are offered a settlement at 90%. Do you take it?
Nuisance value claim You are the claimant You have a 5% chance of winning 1m Do you adopt an aggressive stance?
You are the defendant Claim worth 1m, 5% chance of losing You are offered settlement of 100k (ie 10%). Do you take it?
Transport for London You face 200 nuisance value claims a year 5% chance of losing each one If lose: pay 1m Offered settlement of 100k per claim (10% of the value of the claim) If fight all: you lose 10 cases and pay 10m in total If settle all: you pay 20m in all (20 x 100k)
And finally: Waiver of privilege re Counsel
Waiver of privilege re Counsel Client sues solicitor for negligent conduct of litigation Implied waiver of privilege re the solicitor sued: so that the solicitor may answer Hellard v Irwin Mitchell: held: implied waiver of privilege in counsel s advice too.